Democracy and Christianity

[Acriku]

Often, I have seen religion attacked as the root cause of all evil. However, very few of these critics make the distinction between certain individuals within the religion itself and the religion. The problem is that the corruption that came from religion is the same corruption that exists in every single other sector of human society. To argue that religion should be abolished because of this corruption is to argue that all things social should be abolished.

It certainly is acceptable to abolish religion in places it doesn't belong, such as state affairs and government practices.

Even then, the critics of religion, of Christianity in particular, do not even bother to consider the core tenets of the religion, and instead focus on details which they interpret as contradictory.

Blame the hypocrits who profess Christianity but go against the very core tenets you profess. Christianity would be a very good religion if people would actually adhere to it.

The core tenets of Christianity? To love all? To forgive all? To harm none? How is this wrong? If every individual practiced these beliefs, I think we would live in a much better world! Oh, I forgot, this can never happen, that would be communism.

Well, that cannot ever happen because not everyone would practice those beliefs, without force-conversions to Christianity. It would be an unreachable utopia.

One argument against religion, that science can, and should replace it, is somewhat flawed. Science is not all-inclusive of universal knowledge, and much of what we learn in science is either disproven or changed over time.

Disproven or changed by what? Science! Your assertion is self-defeating. But you have to admit, after having religion be the answer for everything for a millenia or two it is relieving to have a credible method to go about answering life's many mysteries. Saying Goddidit is too common on these lands.

To critisize religion on the grounds that it harms others, I hope, is flawed. Since the core tenets of religion, or, at least, the tenets I choose to follow, are created to prevent the harm of others.

Hardly the core tenets of religion itself, but many mainstream religions. However, you have to understand that many people use religion to hurt people, and the victims are left to think religion is the cause for their miseries. And I can't blame them if religion was a major factor in the conflict.

Furthermore, the other argument against religion -- that it holds back society by creating a dogmatic belief -- is flawed for a reason that I shall soon demonstrate, but, before I do so, I would like to point out that the only person who fears an existing dogma is the man who has his own dogma that he would like to imprint upon others.

This is absurd. There can be many people who just want to be left alone, and not be intruded by other people's dogmae(?). And in fact there are many.

Why religion, then? I submit to you that, beyond your own, personal, individual consciousness, you have no total assurance of the existence of anything around you. Are you truly reading this? Or, are you in some elaborate dream? Is your world really what you think it is?

Are you really a pink unicorn? Are you a speck in an elf's eye? Are you sitting in the buttocks of a flying fairy? Meaningless questions with nothing to go on. You'd be spending your time better asking questions that relate to reality.

To beleive in science, you must assume that there is such a thing as absolute physical fact -- in a universe of constant change.

Of course. We must always assume the fundamentals to be true in order to explore further. Otherwise, we'd never get anywhere. And believing these fundamentals saved millions of lives, if not billions. If those fundamentals are wrong, then we did something right along the way because we're seeing effective results of science at work and none of saying Goddidit.

Let me explain further; everything you sense (see, hear, etc.) passes (we believe) through physical means, then, through biological means, and then, through neurological means to be interpreted by our brain as some such thing which is recognized by our consciousness. Is there not grounds for error?

Of course there's room for error. Human beings are fallible, that's a fact. But using the scientific method and having peer-reviewed material are just two examples of overcoming that possibility of error.

David Hume (an atheist, if that removes any prejudice for atheists) said that one cannot be sure of the existence of anything, of even the self.

That was a rather cheap shot, Wolfwiz. Where is the love?

We cannot tell, even, how much we distort the world, because we have no original frame of reference to compare our view of the world with some "real" world. No. Our mere existence, to go the route of Heisenberg, prevents us from knowing the true world without our conscious viewing of that world. To observe, is to change. Therefore, scientific objectivity is just as baseless scientifically as the atheists claim religion to be.

What? You've got to be kidding me. Let me tell you why scientific objectivity is much more scientifically based: it produces results. If it wasn't scientifically based, then you wouldn't be able to post a reply to this message. You wouldn't be able to stop a common cold from progressing into further lethal stages. You wouldn't be able to drive to work, or school. You wouldn't be able to fly to Africa for a weekend trip on a boat. You wouldn't be able to have open-heart surgery and have the person live a full life for many more decades. You wouldn't be able to create vaccines, or cures, etc. After all, if scientific objectivity was just as scientifically baseless as religion, none of that would have worked! Because of the fact that it consistently does, and consistently has, and consistently will, I must entirely disagree with your statement.

Does not religion ask one to do the same? Not at all -- religion never asks one to accept God as fact, or to prove his existence, but to have unwavering faith in God. Faith and fact are different.

Well of course, since faith lacks any fact or evidence. Going by faith is very dangerous when applied to real-world situations. Millions of people think that their religion requires them to believe the Bible in its entirety as fact. Don't you know how dangerous that is? Dangerous to society, dangerous to themselves.

If God was proven to exist, then belief in him would not be perfect, in fact, it could not be called faith. Soren Kierkegaard, an existentialist, said that one must beleive in God against all fact -- because in this instance, your faith is pure. Kierkegaard, in fact, said that trying to rationalize belief was wrong -- it only leads to further unhappiness. The trick to life, then, is to not worry, be happy.

You don't see this as a way to keep people ignorant with their religion, and keep it maintained? From the perspective that human beings made your religion, this is a perfect mechanism to keep people believing, even if it seems stupid to believe.

Your faith is all that matters, because it is what you believe that becomes reality for you. I would say that, instead of holding one back, religion forces one to question their faith philosophically, and through that faith, their own being.

Is that why so many religious people are bigoted and ignorant to other people, science, basically anything against their religion? I believe that the real world contradicts your statement.

To be an atheist to the core is to, somewhat, ignore the entire idea of faith while submitting to faith anyway; does not one have to have faith in the notion that there is no God?

You're using two different meanings of faith in the same sentence. I have faith that my alarm bell will ring at the time I set it to, because I have prior evidence  that has it going off at that time before. I have faith that my watch is on the correct time, because I have prior evidence that has it telling the correct time before. I have faith that there is no god because I prior evidence that I've concluded to mean that there is no god. I don't have faith in my brand new computer to work, because I have nothing to go off of. You have faith in your religion in this manner, without any evidence. I would also go into the argument that saying that lacking a faith requires faith is wrong, but that's in another thread.

Does a world without a God, with nothing beyond the phsyical existence (which, as I pointed out earlier, is distorted and ultimatally changing simply by our presence) apppeal to one?

Much better than a god that sends everyone who doesn't believe in him to an eternal hell with perpetual pain and suffering, drowns an entire world for mocking him, and destroys cities for their sexual acts and "deviations."

[Wolf]

Quote

One argument against religion, that science can, and should replace it, is somewhat flawed. Science is not all-inclusive of universal knowledge, and much of what we learn in science is either disproven or changed over time.

Disproven or changed by what? Science! Your assertion is self-defeating. But you have to admit, after having religion be the answer for everything for a millenia or two it is relieving to have a credible method to go about answering life's many mysteries. Saying Goddidit is too common on these lands.

*

Assuming the scientific method is correct. a little circular, don't you think?

Quote

David Hume (an atheist, if that removes any prejudice for atheists) said that one cannot be sure of the existence of anything, of even the self.

That was a rather cheap shot, Wolfwiz. Where is the love?

*

I love you, too.

Quote

To be an atheist to the core is to, somewhat, ignore the entire idea of faith while submitting to faith anyway; does not one have to have faith in the notion that there is no God?

You're using two different meanings of faith in the same sentence. I have faith that my alarm bell will ring at the time I set it to, because I have prior evidence

[Anathema]

Kierkegaard, in fact, said that trying to rationalize belief was wrong -- it only leads to further unhappiness.

Couldn't agree more. That's why I'm not interested in the least when somebody claims to have found proof to support the existance or the lack of a god. Not only does it lead nowhere, it completely takes away the point of believing.

*A quick addendum. To abuse religion is one of the worst crimes a human being can commit, because it robs one of their faith. Simply put, religion may require a great deal of responsibility, responsiblity that some people may not have. I would then argue that the only reason religion should be, in any way, limited in its organizatin is for the same argument against communism; that we, as a species, are not ready for it. However, it also seems to be something that we, as a species, desperately need.

I completely agree with this as well. It's also why I think the Catholic church is wrong, trying to institutionalise something that should be left to everybody individually. The best faith one can have IMO, is the faith one has learned to develop himself.

(I'm an agnostic btw, though I used to be strongly atheistical at one time)

[Wolf]

Thank you, Anathema. I am mainly arguing that science, while it is excellent for the day-to-day operation of our lives  -- for, as Acriku said, it produces results -- I am arguing that science cannot completely ensure a life that is fulfilling in human terms. I argue that spirituality, religion, whatever you would like to call it -- is necessary for us to be at some peace with ourselves. I further argue that this is so based on the changing nature of science -- granted, science replaces science, but the old beliefs must give sway to new beliefs; change of belief is not fulfilling in human terms, ask the scientists who created the old beliefs -- and on the fact that religion operates on the principles that our consciousness, in effect, becomes what it incarnates. We should be free to believe whatever we want to believe, because those beliefs become realities, if only for us. That is the key to living a life fulfilling in human terms, and it is dependent on what the individual wants. Science without religion is blind in that science is unable to fulfill what it is human beings truly want in terms of their conscious existence, and to place science as the mind-set in both external and internat sectors of our lives is to prevent fulfillment. Religion without science is lame because religion cannot fulfill the internal needs of fulfillment of life if it is also applied to external matters; religion alone cannot answer many of the external problems, and the only way for religion to attempt to do so is through rationalization, which fails. Thus, both religion and science are needed. Above, I argued with Acriku, I think, for misunderstood reasons. I am not saying that science should be abolished -- no, I merely assert that it should be applied only to external interactions human beings have, while internal consciousness should deal with matters more akin to religion.

[Acriku]

Assuming the scientific method is correct. a little circular, don't you think?

You would only be assuming that what you observe is actually reality. Which is the only rational thing to do unless we have evidence to suggest it isn't reality.

Kierkegaard was saying that you must have faith when there is no reason for you to believe. So, that would mean that you faith in there not being a God is not actually faith, since you have prior evidence to contradict God's existence... so, please, tell me, what evidence do you have?

Not to contradict his existence, that'd be futile, physically. I was referring to his lack of presence, lack of evidence of any interaction tied to God, etc. It leaves one to conclude that there most likely is not a god. Just like the nonpresence of a pink unicorn looking over us all.

But, isn't that the problem? Peer-reviewing material and the scientfic method are both employed by flawed human beings. There is still the chance for bias, and however much you peer-review and rationalize, bad results can still happen.

Of course, which is why if there is a better theory to explain the phenomena scientists would repeat the same procedure and would accept that theory for now.

Look at Nazi Germany, you had an entire nation beginning to believe that it was the master race! Peer review did not really help them! Furthermore, they created all sorts of horribly flawed "science" to back up their eugenics war.

You've got to be kidding me! If Nazi Germany's theory of being the master race went into the same critiques that theories go through in the scientific community they wouldn't have made it past a few days. There was no supporting evidence for their being the master race enough for scientists to accept that theory. Science can be used by anybody, whether flawed or not, but don't confuse the science practied today in fields such as archaeology, geology, biology, pathology, etc, with the "science" used in Nazi Germany. Two different practices and methods.

If I might quote Albert Einstein to clarify my stance on both religion and science, since I am taking quite a few jabs at science here, and I don't want to be misunderstood; "Religion without science is lame, and science without religion is blind."

Einstein was hardly an authority on religion, so I can only see this as an opinion of a scientist. Although I've always wondered what he meant by the latter part.

[Acriku]

Thank you, Anathema. I am mainly arguing that science, while it is excellent for the day-to-day operation of our lives  -- for, as Acriku said, it produces results -- I am arguing that science cannot completely ensure a life that is fulfilling in human terms.

So you're saying that science cannot fulfill those questions that are so deer to our hearts, like the question of God, of spirituality, of the soul? Sure, some may need answers to those questions, but I'm living a great life without them.

I argue that spirituality, religion, whatever you would like to call it -- is necessary for us to be at some peace with ourselves.

So I'm not at peace with myself, eh? Heh.

We should be free to believe whatever we want to believe, because those beliefs become realities, if only for us.

If only for us, then what is the meaning of it? Is it truly reality if it is only true in our minds and if not, then why would we continue to delude ourselves?

Science without religion is blind in that science is unable to fulfill what it is human beings truly want in terms of their conscious existence, and to place science as the mind-set in both external and internat sectors of our lives is to prevent fulfillment.

Since science is the quest for truth, I see at first no reason why it couldn't fulfill these "wants." However, when you talk about beings beyond the physical realm, it is of course futile. But then again, perhaps that's precisely why people think their god to be outside the physical realm, so that they don't have to face the cruelty of science towards falsities.

Thus, both religion and science are needed. Above, I argued with Acriku, I think, for misunderstood reasons. I am not saying that science should be abolished -- no, I merely assert that it should be applied only to external interactions human beings have, while internal consciousness should deal with matters more akin to religion.

Religion isn't needed for myself, so you're in fact wrong. Religion isn't needed for millions of people across the world, so why would you say that it is needed? Would you be so stern to assert that their lives are not fulfilled? Some people don't need answers to those questions, just like they don't need answers to questions such as: are we in an elf's purple underwear? Are we being looked at by a pink unicorn?

[Wolf]

Awww, screw it, I'm done. You havn't won yet, Acriku. If you want to see my inflammatory post, or continue this elsewhere, PM me.